All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
UPSC Exam  >  UPSC Questions  >  Is mixed economy in india help in reducing po... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how?
Clear all your UPSC doubts with EduRev
Most Upvoted Answer
Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and g...
The mixed economy in India has played a significant role in reducing poverty, inequality, and generating employment opportunities. Here is a detailed explanation of how this economic system has contributed to these aspects:

1. Poverty Reduction:
- Social Welfare Programs: The Indian government has implemented various social welfare programs aimed at reducing poverty. These programs provide direct benefits to the impoverished sections of society, such as food subsidies, healthcare, and financial assistance. These initiatives help alleviate poverty by ensuring basic needs are met.
- Employment Generation: The mixed economy model promotes industrialization and economic growth, leading to increased job opportunities. This helps lift people out of poverty by providing them with a means to earn a livelihood.
- Rural Development: The government has focused on rural development through initiatives like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). This program guarantees 100 days of employment to rural households, reducing poverty and generating income for the rural population.

2. Inequality Reduction:
- Reservation Policies: India has implemented reservation policies to address historical social inequalities. These policies ensure representation and opportunities for marginalized sections of society, such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). This helps reduce inequality by providing equal access to education, employment, and political representation.
- Progressive Taxation: The mixed economy model allows for progressive taxation, where higher-income individuals are taxed at a higher rate. This redistributes wealth and reduces income disparities, thereby promoting a more equitable society.
- Land Reforms: Land reforms have been undertaken to address land inequalities and provide land to landless farmers. This helps in reducing inequality by ensuring equitable distribution of resources.

3. Employment Generation:
- Industrialization: The mixed economy model encourages industrialization, leading to increased manufacturing and service sector activities. This creates employment opportunities across various sectors, absorbing a significant portion of the workforce.
- Skill Development: The government has initiated skill development programs to enhance the employability of the workforce. These programs focus on providing vocational training and upgrading skills, aligning them with market demands.
- Entrepreneurship Promotion: The mixed economy model supports entrepreneurship by providing a conducive environment for business growth. This encourages individuals to start their own ventures, leading to job creation.

In conclusion, the mixed economy in India has played a crucial role in reducing poverty, inequality, and generating employment opportunities. Through social welfare programs, reservation policies, progressive taxation, land reforms, industrialization, skill development, and entrepreneurship promotion, the government has aimed to create a more equitable and prosperous society.
Explore Courses for UPSC exam

Similar UPSC Doubts

Read the followingpassageand answer the itemthat follow. Your answerto thisitemshould be based on the passageonly.Passage-5Economic liberalization in India was shaped largely by the economic problems of the government than by the economic priorities of the people or by the long-term development objectives. Thus, there were limitations in conception and design which have been subsequently validated by experience. Jobless growth, persistent poverty and rising inequality have mounted as problems since economic liberalization began. And all these years later, four quiet crises confront the economy: agriculture infrastructure, industrialization and education as constraints on the country’s future prospects. These problems must be resolved if economic growth has to be sustained and transformed into meaningful development.With reference to the above passage, the following assumptions have been made:1. Indias economy needs to be greatly integrated with global economy so as to create large number of jobs and to sustain its growth momentum.2. Economic liberalization would cause large economic growth which would reduce poverty and create sufficient employment in the long run.Which of the above assumptions is/are valid?

Passage 2After the end of World War II, a pervasive, but unfortunately fallacious, economic perspective took hold. Based on the United States successful emergence from the Depression, the idea that war was good for an economy became fashionable. However, linking the United States economic recovery with its entry into World War II is a prime example offlawed economic thinking.Supporters of the war benefits economy theory hold that a country at war is a country with a booming economy. Industry must produce weapons, supplies, food, and clothing for the troops. The increased production necessitates the hiring of more people, reducing unemployment. More employment means more money in the pockets of citizens, who are then likely to go out and spend that money, helping the retail sector of the economy. Retail shops experience an increase in business and may need to hire more workers, further reducing unemployment and adding to the economic momentum. While this scenario sounds good in theory, it does not accurately represent what truly happens in a war time economy.In reality, the government can fund a war in a combination of three ways. It can raise taxes, cut spending on other areas, or increase the national debt. Each of these strategies has a negative impact on the economy. An increase in taxes takes money out of an individuals hands, leading to a reduction in consumer spending.Clearly, there is no net benefit to the economy in that case. Cutting spending in other areas has its costs as well, even if they are not as obvious.Any reduction in government spending means the imposition of a greater burden on the benefactors of that government spending. Cutbacks in a particular program mean that the people who normally depend on that program now must spend more of their money to make up for the government cuts. This also takes money out of consumers hands and leaves the economy depressed. Of course, a government could go into debt during the war, but such a strategy simply means that at some point in the future, taxes must be increased or spending decreased. Plus, the interest on the debt must be paid as well.Q. Which of the following situations best mirrors the effect that cutting spending in government programs has, as detailed in the passage?

Passage 2After the end of World War II, a pervasive, but unfortunately fallacious, economic perspective took hold. Based on the United States successful emergence from the Depression, the idea that war was good for an economy became fashionable. However, linking the United States economic recovery with its entry into World War II is a prime example offlawed economic thinking.Supporters of the war benefits economy theory hold that a country at war is a country with a booming economy. Industry must produce weapons, supplies, food, and clothing for the troops. The increased production necessitates the hiring of more people, reducing unemployment. More employment means more money in the pockets of citizens, who are then likely to go out and spend that money, helping the retail sector of the economy. Retail shops experience an increase in business and may need to hire more workers, further reducing unemployment and adding to the economic momentum. While this scenario sounds good in theory, it does not accurately represent what truly happens in a war time economy.In reality, the government can fund a war in a combination of three ways. It can raise taxes, cut spending on other areas, or increase the national debt. Each of these strategies has a negative impact on the economy. An increase in taxes takes money out of an individuals hands, leading to a reduction in consumer spending.Clearly, there is no net benefit to the economy in that case. Cutting spending in other areas has its costs as well, even if they are not as obvious.Any reduction in government spending means the imposition of a greater burden on the benefactors of that government spending. Cutbacks in a particular program mean that the people who normally depend on that program now must spend more of their money to make up for the government cuts. This also takes money out of consumers hands and leaves the economy depressed. Of course, a government could go into debt during the war, but such a strategy simply means that at some point in the future, taxes must be increased or spending decreased. Plus, the interest on the debt must be paid as well.Q. The second paragraph of the passage performs which of the following functions?

Passage 2After the end of World War II, a pervasive, but unfortunately fallacious, economic perspective took hold. Based on the United States successful emergence from the Depression, the idea that war was good for an economy became fashionable. However, linking the United States economic recovery with its entry into World War II is a prime example offlawed economic thinking.Supporters of the war benefits economy theory hold that a country at war is a country with a booming economy. Industry must produce weapons, supplies, food, and clothing for the troops. The increased production necessitates the hiring of more people, reducing unemployment. More employment means more money in the pockets of citizens, who are then likely to go out and spend that money, helping the retail sector of the economy. Retail shops experience an increase in business and may need to hire more workers, further reducing unemployment and adding to the economic momentum. While this scenario sounds good in theory, it does not accurately represent what truly happens in a war time economy.In reality, the government can fund a war in a combination of three ways. It can raise taxes, cut spending on other areas, or increase the national debt. Each of these strategies has a negative impact on the economy. An increase in taxes takes money out of an individuals hands, leading to a reduction in consumer spending.Clearly, there is no net benefit to the economy in that case. Cutting spending in other areas has its costs as well, even if they are not as obvious.Any reduction in government spending means the imposition of a greater burden on the benefactors of that government spending. Cutbacks in a particular program mean that the people who normally depend on that program now must spend more of their money to make up for the government cuts. This also takes money out of consumers hands and leaves the economy depressed. Of course, a government could go into debt during the war, but such a strategy simply means that at some point in the future, taxes must be increased or spending decreased. Plus, the interest on the debt must be paid as well.Q. The "pervasive...economic perspective" mentioned in line 1 took hold because

Passage 2After the end of World War II, a pervasive, but unfortunately fallacious, economic perspective took hold. Based on the United States successful emergence from the Depression, the idea that war was good for an economy became fashionable. However, linking the United States economic recovery with its entry into World War II is a prime example offlawed economic thinking.Supporters of the war benefits economy theory hold that a country at war is a country with a booming economy. Industry must produce weapons, supplies, food, and clothing for the troops. The increased production necessitates the hiring of more people, reducing unemployment. More employment means more money in the pockets of citizens, who are then likely to go out and spend that money, helping the retail sector of the economy. Retail shops experience an increase in business and may need to hire more workers, further reducing unemployment and adding to the economic momentum. While this scenario sounds good in theory, it does not accurately represent what truly happens in a war time economy.In reality, the government can fund a war in a combination of three ways. It can raise taxes, cut spending on other areas, or increase the national debt. Each of these strategies has a negative impact on the economy. An increase in taxes takes money out of an individuals hands, leading to a reduction in consumer spending.Clearly, there is no net benefit to the economy in that case. Cutting spending in other areas has its costs as well, even if they are not as obvious.Any reduction in government spending means the imposition of a greater burden on the benefactors of that government spending. Cutbacks in a particular program mean that the people who normally depend on that program now must spend more of their money to make up for the government cuts. This also takes money out of consumers hands and leaves the economy depressed. Of course, a government could go into debt during the war, but such a strategy simply means that at some point in the future, taxes must be increased or spending decreased. Plus, the interest on the debt must be paid as well.Q. The passage implies which of the following about a government that funds a war by increasing the national debt?

Top Courses for UPSCView all

Top Courses for UPSC

Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how?
Question Description
Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how?.
Solutions for Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how?, a detailed solution for Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how? has been provided alongside types of Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Is mixed economy in india help in reducing poverty or inequality and generate employment opportunities If yes ,then how? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.
Explore Courses for UPSC exam

Top Courses for UPSC

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup